Editorial: Prop. 22 defends the indefensible

One of the worst policies in California is "redevelopment." Under it, local governments use state tax money to seize properties, even perfectly good ones, they designate as blighted in order to "redevelop" them. The properties usually are given to other private companies that benefit, such as big-box stores. The original owners are compensated but often at below-market rates. This is a strong violation of property rights.

Last year, the state government, faced with its usual huge budget deficit, "raided" local government funding to the tune of $5 billion, grabbing not only redevelopment funds but public safety and transportation funds as well. Proposition 22 on the Nov. 2 ballot would prevent a recurrence. It is supported by the California Redevelopment Association, the California Fire Chiefs Association and the California Police Chiefs Association, among others.

Opposing Prop. 22 are the California Teachers Association, Health Access California and others. They say it would force cuts in school funding and other state programs or could lead to tax increases to make up the billions the state took from local governments.

We oppose Prop 22 for several reasons. First, it's good to see the rapacious redevelopment agencies lose some funding. The state should go further and abolish them. Second, we oppose "ballot-box budgeting," in which voters lock in portions of government spending, making it more difficult to cut budgets and increasing pressure for tax increases. Third, even though some worthy local programs may be cut, that's better than increases in state taxes to offset money the state otherwise would have grabbed.

Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, wrote on Flashreport.org, "Prop. 22 makes it impossible for the Legislature to reform the worst abuses of redevelopment agencies. Their big-government powers of land use, eminent domain, subsidies and uncontrolled debt will be enshrined in our constitution. ... As a Fullerton City Council member I watched nearby Buena Park lure away our auto dealerships with lavish tax subsidies. As an Orange County supervisor I saw the Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency demolish an entire neighborhood, then leave the fenced-off lots vacant for years. I saw millions in property tax revenue diverted from public safety to redevelopment schemes."

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words or videos of 30-seconds
each will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.